IIRC Report on the Aug. 23 hostage-taking crisis: On the media-coverage, IIRC did NOT cite criminal/civil law: But the KBP Code of Ethics. On: Sniper posts & hostage-taker interviews. [for media practitioners and media critics: It’s good to carry on and continue the review, self-examination and “self-criticism”; hopefully, multi-lateral involving the three television stations, ABS-CBN Channel 2 , GMA7, ABC5 — nothing can be used against the personnel of the three television organizations (reporters and producers) criminally or civilly and the IIRC Report did not cite criminal law or civil law for the media coverage, wag ma-harass; not even the NTC law… (Well, it was another matter for those who interviewed live the hostage-taker and took up his communication line, the IIRC Report was not too kind on that aspect). On the violent reaction itself of the hostage-taker upon seeing his brother’s arrest, the IIRC laid the responsibility on those who were fully aware of the hostage-taker’s previous violent reactions and the authorities who ordered or allowed the arrest in full public display (this has been pointed out in this blog a day after the incident, and the blog even asked those Monday- morning-quarterbacks socking it to the media for being there when the arrest of a news subject (by then, he was a news subject) screaming and wailing and flailing himself, suddenly took place publicly: “Who was in charge? (of that incident, of roughing up and grappling publicly)?!!] here it is (i took the liberty of editing the word “footage”; never pluralized, not “footages”; instead of putting sic, which would be distracting:)
IIRC Report. Quote “Who is responsible for what was aired on broadcast media? Reporters covering the incident are being blamed for the showing of the above footage. This should be clarified in relation to how broadcast media organizations actually operate.
Quote “When news reporters and their supporting crew, i.e., camera men, communication links etc. are sent to cover an event, their basic mandate is to get as much news worthy information, footage, voice clips and sound bites as they can. The decision on what goes on the air is not of the reporters’. There were footage that were taken from various locations and covering various situations connected with the incident that were not aired. The decision on what goes on the air is made by the producer(s) and/or director(s) in charge of the coverage who are located at the station not the site and, to a certain level, the anchor person.
Quote “On the side of the authorities, it must be pointed out that because of the nature of how media operate, the media personnel on the ground take their cue from the authorities particularly the police officer assigned to coordinate with media. In the incident under review, it was not clear as to who this person was. A certain PCI (Major) Margarejo was giving information to media from noon to about mid afternoon, however, this giving of relevant information and coordination with media personnel ceased by about 4p.m. No coordination was ever made other than in relation to the established police line. A megaphone was being used at the police line to issue instructions to the crowd gathered and to media.
Quote “It must also be emphasized that the persons charged with resolving the crisis incident knew what was being aired by broadcast media because they were also partially relying on feeds from media outlets particularly television. Since they were also the ones on-the-know on potential tactical maneuvers, they were in a position to assess the impact of media coverage on such maneuvers. Media did not know how, or when, the coverage might potentially affect police operations as media were operating within established parameters at that time. No coordination with media was ever made on this aspect. The “terms of engagement” between the authorities resolving the crisis situation and media is that directives on restricted coverage will come from the authorities. This is not to say that media is free from responsibility because there are ethical rules and guidelines that they should have observed when it became evident that what was being covered and aired were tactical details. Self-restraint or self-regulation by the media outlets concerned should have been observed.
Quote “The Coverage of SPO2 Gregorio Mendoza Being Taken Into Custody
Quote “A critical incident that involved the coverage by media, particularly television and radio, was the incident involving the arrest or taking into custody of SPO2 Gregorio Mendoza. Correlated with the testimonies of Lubang and the survivors, as well as audio recordings on what was transpiring inside the bus, the incident involving Gregorio, made vivid to the Hostage Taker through television, indicates that seeing what was being done to his brother on television appeared to be the tipping point that led the Hostage Taker into shooting the hostages. The Hostage Taker was heard shouting for the police to release his brother and giving deadlines for the release. He was also heard asking why his brother was being treated “like a pig”. It was while this incident was taking place, and immediately thereafter, that the shooting of hostages took place.
Quote ”Were the reporters covering the incident involving Gregorio Mendoza responsible for the reaction of the Hostage Taker? It must be noted that the incident, which was a “news worthy” incident, practically fell on the laps of the reporters situated at the entrance of the Advance Command Post of the police. Gregorio Mendoza ran to them shouting that he was being arrested and, claiming his innocence, lay on the ground resisting attempts of the police to subdue and take him into custody. Television footage of the police forcibly taking Gregorio into custody was also taken and aired. Some footage showed the police asking media not to cover the incident.
Quote “The potentially adverse impact of reporting on, or giving coverage to, the arrest could only be assessed if the incident is correlated with other events that immediately preceded or were simultaneously happening i.e. if taken as series of related incidents. Because of flaws in the coordination with media, due to lack of a point person (if any was assigned), and the lack of crowd control measures in the vicinity, restraining media was either too late or impossible. At that point in time, was media in error in covering the incident? From the point of view of media, the answer is, no. It was undoubtedly a “news worthy” event transpiring right before them because, aside from Gregorio Mendoza being the brother of the Hostage Taker, Gregorio was officially a made a player in the negotiation process by no less than the authorities. Note that immediately preceding the incident, Gregorio Mendoza was made to accompany the Chief Negotiator, Col. Yebra, to present to the Hostage Taker the letter from the Ombudsman. From the point of view of media or a reporter, anything involving a key personality in the incident was “news worthy”.
Quote ”It should also be noted that at that point in time, no one in the media knew what transpired during the latest contact of Col. Yebra, Maj. Salvador, and Gregorio Mendoza with the Hostage Taker and subsequently, at the Advance Command Post where the order to place Gregorio under custody was issued which information, if known to media, could have given “context” to coverage of Gregorio. Gregorio’s running to the media and his antics were a sudden and surprising development.
Quote “In contrast, the authorities knew or anticipated the possible repercussions if media knew of, and reported on, the arrest as demonstrated by the order to use the back door of the Advance Command Post as an exit of the police officers taking Gregorio into custody precisely “to avoid media”. To be fair, the authorities concerned were probably in a “catch 22” situation because it could be tactically wrong to give media a “heads-up” not to report on Gregorio’s arrest. This information, if given, might be leaked either intentionally, accidentally or inadvertently. But that was precisely why the authorities should have taken more stringent measures to shield Gregorio’s being arrested, from the media. Of note is the lack of crowd control measures instituted at a very critical area i.e the Advance Command Post at the site. By accounts of witnesses, anybody and everybody including media, was practically able to move about the said Advance Command Post. This constitutes lack of concern for security or confidentiality in or about a critical center for police operations.” Closed-quote.
xxx
A few hours ago, the on-line Official Gazette (OG) published the substantive part of the much-anticipated presidential IIRC report on the Aug. 23 hostage-taking crisis (IIRC, innocuously: Incident Investigation and Review Committee).
[what is the OG? In the olden times, in the 18th Century onwards, the inhabitants of these islands found out about the laws and cases in this country through the little-known, little-published OG. It took a Manolo Quezon, presidential Communications Group undersecretary, to make the OG take a two-hundred-year leap by producing and launching the on-line version of it this July 2010. Hurray, someone in Malacañang is not being eaten up by the much-reported in-fighting and is actually doing real work. I’m digressing; just wanted to say “Hi!” to Manolo, because i hate doing work in this blog (work is giving a legal opinion). Manolo in an interview in July said that the daily on-line OG would not legally supplant the weekly paper version of it for purposes of making laws take effect 15 days after their publication as provided in the Civil Code. He’s being conservative about that, even more conservative than the Supreme Court; or maybe that was a legal opinion from a Malacañang lawyer. The Supreme Court a decade ago had recognized the admissibility of digital evidence by approving and implementing the Electronic Rules of Evidence, under the amended, as amended, Rules of Court; the legislature has passed the E-Commerce Law; regional trial courts in this country have taken jurisdiction over special civil actions (injunction cases) of parties seeking to enjoin certain on-line publications for “invasion of privacy” etc.; and for purposes of effectivity of laws, publication in daily newspapers are recognized, 15 days after publication. The next step is to take it to on-line publications; which shouldn’t have to require another law; construe the word “publish” to include the on-line version of the national broadsheets and the on-line OG. Oh, don’t forget to “friend” and “tweet” the Supreme Court in your Facebook and Twitter accounts because it’s now on Facebook and Twitter. Apologies for the long parenthetical statement, i just miss Manolo’s blog, now inactive …]
OG published the substantive part of the IIRC report ahead of the “dispositive” portion (the recommendations). Although most lawyers jump to the dispositive portion when going over a Decision of the Court, the dispositive is usually consistent with, and flows logically from the ratio decidendi (rationale for the decision), or the substantive portion.
The blog will discuss the portion on the media coverage.
(as fate would have it — woke up two hours earlier than usual waking time but have to get dressed in an hour, to leave before the flyover gets filled up).
Those who are crying “chilling effect” and raising warnings of criminal liability against journalists might want to read the IIRC report first.
Very lucid. (i don’t know what President Noynoy was all-apprehensive about, when he sent a copy to the Chinese embassy first, ahead of publishing the report).
Even the opening line of the report could not have been written by anyone except a lawyer-writer who has some journalistic background, or at the very least, one who appreciates irony, surrealism, etc:
quote”First Report of the
INCIDENT INVESTIGATION and REVIEW COMMITTEE
on the
August, 23, 2010 Rizal Park Hostage-taking Incident:
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS, EVALUATION and RECOMMENDATIONS
IIRC, September 16, 2010
“Is that the bus going to the Heroes’ Graveyard?”
-PSInsp Rolando Del Rosario Mendoza, to Ruth Del Castillo, Fort Santiago, August 23, 2010.
BASIS OF AUTHORITY, COMPOSITION and MANDATE of the IIRC
xxx (discussion)” closed-quote. (the lawyer-writer-editor of this report even appreciated font and lay-out, look at the choice of quote, the itals, the position on the page, etc. Hi Roan. Hi Leila. Secretary de Lima and Atty. Libarios sure know their law, please read the report. The President was worried too much about this report, perhaps he was concerned about the effect of the recommendations on his appointees, some of whom are his friends – well, talagang ganyan ang buhay).
On the media coverage (in a bit, i’m still writing… i have to get dressed! it’s 4am! the flyover will be filled up at 6:30 am; i will continue this on my lunch break; i already quoted the substantive portion on the media coverage of the brother’s arrest. )
